The non-Lindsay Lohan biopic: As confused and tortured as the real thing

By
Liz Kelly

Lindsay Lohan -- no dog, no pocketbook. (AP)

If Lindsay Lohan can't play a troubled porn star in a yet-to-be-made biopic, then no one is going to use her life to make a movie about a troubled non-porn star in a yet-to-be-made biopic.

And so it is that we may never have our dream of seeing model/heiress Lydia Hearst play a trouble-plagued starlet in a movie called "Dogs in Pocketbooks" actually realized.

Hunh?

Let's back up.

When it comes to fictionalizations or loose interpretations of her life, the actress -- currently in rehab -- is notoriously sensitive. Last January, Lohan sued E-Trade for referring to a milkaholic baby named "Lindsey" and, in November, mom Dina spoke out against "Glee" and Gwyneth Paltrow for using Lohan for comic fodder.

This week, Lohan -- via mom Dina -- is threatening legal action against the makers of a movie that had previously been described as "loosely based" on Lohan's life.

In Monday's New York Post, screenwriter Charles Casillo was quoted as saying, "Lydia will play a bratty movie goddess in and out of rehab, in trouble with the law, and hounded by greedy agents, predatory paparazzi, off-the-wall stalkers and crazed media -- a role obviously based on Lindsay Lohan."

"[The movie] is in no way mean-spirited towards Lindsay," added Casillo. "It's the kind of thing she has spoofed about herself in the past. It's more of a satire about the crazy people around her and the situations they generate. It satirizes the obsession with modern celebrity."

Not so fast. Mean-spirited or not, Dina Lohan has gone on record (aka TMZ) to threaten legal action against the movie because, according to the family's lawyer, "They are again using [Lindsay's] likeness without her being compensated."

Added Dina Lohan to TMZ, "Anyone bringing negativity will be dealt with accordingly."

Which may explain why Casillo today backpedalled a bit, telling EW:

"I originally said that the character is a composite of many young starlets today ... including Lindsay Lohan. I also said it has some of the old glamor goddesses in the character too, like Marilyn Monroe and Jean Harlow. It is by no means 'The Lindsay Lohan Story.' Other headlines regarding actresses like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are also spoofed."

Makes sense since we've never seen Lilo jaunting around with anything resembling a dog in her pocketbook. If it were specifically about Lindsay, the title would need to be something more akin to "Cocaine in Pocket."

The wrath of Lohan may also explain why Hearst is distancing herself from the project, tweeting, "As for any theatrical roles I am currently filming Two Jacks directed by Bernard Rose. My next project is Catwalk by Tony Hickox. At this time I am not officially signed onto any other projects."

All the producers have to do is to make the lead a brunette and have her smoke crystal meth. If LiLo's lawyers initiate a lawsuit over that, it's a tacit admission that LiLo is not a blonde. As for whether she does crystal meth, probably not........yet.

Isn't this media hype at its most perverse? Feeding on the remains of its dying stars to produce new ones, always using what Casillo quite knowingly called the ‘crazed media’ to catalyze the cannibalis tic feeding frenzy. Is this is not the unending life cycle of the media industry?

Dina Lohan is way off base as usual. No one needs Lindsay's permission to write a book or a screenplay based on her life. Nor is Lindsay (or mommie dearest) entitled to a cut of the proceeds. I don't understand why anyone would back off of anything just because Dina screams "lawyer."